DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/989,829 filed on December 20, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by the M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on July 2, 2021 (Taiwan TW110124385).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) in parent application 17/458,050, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on August 26, 2021 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated December 20, 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. Note that a copy of CN 106461905 has been provided by the examiner and included in the attached 892, because only a translation of the abstract was supplied by applicant.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: supporting mechanism in claims 1 and 10. In the instant case “mechanism” is a generic placeholder, “wherein the supporting mechanism provides the carrier with the at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body” is functional language, and “supporting” is an adjective describing the function, not a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Note that claims 4 and 13 recite sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and thus claims 4 and 13 are not interpreted under 112(f).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,206 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as identified in the table below.
Instant Application
US 12,210,206 B2
Explanation as needed
1. An optical element driving unit, comprising:
a stationary body;
a carrier, configured for at least one optical element to be disposed thereon, wherein the carrier has at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body;
a supporting mechanism, connected to the carrier and the stationary body, wherein the supporting mechanism provides the carrier with the at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body; and
an electromagnetic driving assembly, configured to move the carrier relative to the stationary body, wherein the electromagnetic driving assembly comprises:
a driving coil, disposed on the carrier;
a driving magnet, disposed on the stationary body and disposed corresponding to the driving coil; and
a ferromagnetic element, disposed on the carrier, wherein the ferromagnetic element is one-piece formed and comprises a magnetic field guiding part and a first electrical connection part,
the magnetic field guiding part faces at least one of the driving coil and the driving magnet, and
the first electrical connection part is electrically connected to the driving coil;
wherein the ferromagnetic element is formed by a stamping process, and the ferromagnetic element has:
a shearing surface;
a tearing surface, opposite to the shearing surface; and
a cutting surface, connected to the shearing surface and the tearing surface;
wherein the first electrical connection part of the ferromagnetic element is disposed on a bar structure of the carrier;
wherein a part of the tearing surface located at the first electrical connection part faces the bar structure, and a part of the shearing surface located at the first electrical connection part is in physical contact with the driving coil.
1. An optical element driving unit, comprising:
a stationary body;
a carrier, configured for at least one optical element to be disposed thereon, wherein the carrier has at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body;
a supporting mechanism, connected to the carrier and the stationary body, wherein the supporting mechanism provides the carrier with the at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body; and
an electromagnetic driving assembly, configured to move the carrier relative to the stationary body, wherein the electromagnetic driving assembly comprises:
a driving coil, disposed on the carrier;
a driving magnet, disposed on the stationary body and disposed corresponding to the driving coil; and
a ferromagnetic element, embedded in the carrier, wherein… the ferromagnetic element is one-piece formed and comprises a magnetic field guiding part and a first electrical connection part,
the magnetic field guiding part faces at least one of the driving coil and the driving magnet,
… and the first electrical connection part is electrically connected to the driving coil
8. The optical element driving unit of claim 1, wherein the ferromagnetic element is formed by a stamping process, and the ferromagnetic element has: a shearing surface;
a tearing surface, opposite to the shearing surface; and
a cutting surface, connected to the shearing surface and the tearing surface;
9. The optical element driving unit of claim 8,
wherein the first electrical connection part of the ferromagnetic element is disposed on a bar structure of the carrier;
wherein a part of the tearing surface located at the first electrical connection part faces the bar structure, and a part of the shearing surface located at the first electrical connection part is in physical contact with the driving coil.
If the ferromagnetic element is embedded in the carrier, then it is also “disposed on” the carrier.
10. An optical element driving unit, comprising:
a stationary body;
a carrier, configured for at least one optical element to be disposed thereon, wherein the carrier has at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body;
a supporting mechanism, connected to the carrier and the stationary body, wherein the supporting mechanism provides the carrier with the at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body; and
an electromagnetic driving assembly, configured to move the carrier relative to the stationary body, wherein the electromagnetic driving assembly comprises:
a driving coil, disposed on the carrier;
a driving magnet, disposed on the stationary body and disposed corresponding to the driving coil; and
a ferromagnetic element, disposed on the carrier,
wherein the ferromagnetic element has the at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body,
the ferromagnetic element is one-piece formed and comprises a magnetic field guiding part and a first electrical connection part,
the magnetic field guiding part faces at least one of the driving coil and the driving magnet,
and the first electrical connection part is disposed on a bar structure of the carrier
and is electrically connected to the driving coil on the bar structure.
1. An optical element driving unit, comprising:
a stationary body;
a carrier, configured for at least one optical element to be disposed thereon, wherein the carrier has at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body;
a supporting mechanism, connected to the carrier and the stationary body, wherein the supporting mechanism provides the carrier with the at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body; and
an electromagnetic driving assembly, configured to move the carrier relative to the stationary body, wherein the electromagnetic driving assembly comprises:
a driving coil, disposed on the carrier;
a driving magnet, disposed on the stationary body and disposed corresponding to the driving coil; and
a ferromagnetic element, embedded in the carrier,
wherein the ferromagnetic element has the at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body,
the ferromagnetic element is one-piece formed and comprises a magnetic field guiding part and a first electrical connection part,
the magnetic field guiding part faces at least one of the driving coil and the driving magnet,
8. The optical element driving unit of claim 1…
9. The optical element driving unit of claim 8,
wherein the first electrical connection part of the ferromagnetic element is disposed on a bar structure of the carrier;
1. and the first electrical connection part is electrically connected to the driving coil
If the ferromagnetic element is embedded in the carrier, then it is also “disposed on” the carrier.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-9, 12-13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,206 B2 in view of Hasegawa JP 2014/160195 (hereafter Hasegawa), see explanations in the table below.
Instant Application
US 12,210,206
Hasegawa or explanation as needed.
8 (or 17) An imaging optical module, comprising:
the optical element driving unit of claim 1 (or 10); and
an imaging assembly, comprising the at least one optical element,
wherein the at least one optical element is located at an imaging light path, and
the carrier has a degree of freedom of movement along the imaging light path.
12. An imaging optical module, comprising:
the optical element driving unit of claim 1; and
an imaging assembly, comprising the at least one optical element,
wherein the at least one optical element is located at an imaging light path.
13. The imaging optical module of claim 12, wherein the carrier has a degree of freedom of movement along the imaging light path.
Claim 9 of the patent fails to teach the limitations of instant claims 8 or 17.
However, claims 12 and 13 teach all of the limitations of claims 8 or 17.
Hasegawa teaches an optical element driving unit meeting most of the limitations of claim 1 (see reasons for indicating allowable subject matter below).
Hasegawa further teaches “An imaging optical module (paragraph [0001] “camera”, paragraph [0022]: “an imaging element on a board on which the lens driving device 1 is mounted.”), comprising:
the optical element driving unit of claim 1 (see claim 1 above); and
an imaging assembly (paragraph [0044] “A lens body (not shown)”), comprising the at least one optical element (paragraph [0044] “A lens body (not shown)”), wherein the at least one optical element is located at an imaging light path (the lens body is held by the lens holder over the opening 202 which accommodates the imaging element see paragraphs [0020]-[0022]). Thus the lens is located in the imaging light path),
wherein the carrier has a degree of freedom of movement along the imaging light path (paragraph [0020]: “moving a lens holder 7 capable of holding a lens body (not shown) in the optical axis direction”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make use of the optical element driving unit of the patent to move a lens of an imaging optical module in a direction parallel to the light path as taught by both claims 12 and 13 of the patent and Hasegawa, since this is a frequently desired movement within an imaging optical module.
9 (or 18) An electronic device, comprising:
the imaging optical module of claim 8; and
an image sensor, disposed on an image surface of the imaging optical module.
15. An electronic device, comprising:
the imaging optical module of claim 12; and
an image sensor, disposed on an image surface of the imaging optical module.
Claim 9 of the patent fails to teach the limitations of instant claims 9 or 18.
However, claim 15 teaches the limitations of claims 9 or 18.
Hasegawa teaches an optical element driving unit meeting most of the limitations of claim 1 (see reasons for indicating allowable subject matter below).
Hasegawa further teaches “An electronic device (paragraph [0001]: “a mobile phone or the like”), comprising:
the imaging optical module of claim 13 (see claim 13 above); and
an image sensor (paragraph [0022]: “an imaging element”), disposed on an image surface of the imaging optical module (by definition the plane or surface at which the imaging element is located is the image surface of the camera).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the imaging optical module into an electronic device having an image sensor as taught by claim 15 and Hasegawa, since this is one of the most common uses of an imaging optical module before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 10 would be allowable the obviousness-type double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action is overcome.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and the obviousness-type double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action is overcome.
Claims 2-7 and 11-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “wherein the first electrical connection part of the ferromagnetic element is disposed on a bar structure of the carrier; wherein a part of the tearing surface located at the first electrical connection part faces the bar structure, and a part of the shearing surface located at the first electrical connection part is in physical contact with the driving coil.”
Regarding claim 10, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “the first electrical connection part is disposed on a bar structure of the carrier and is electrically connected to the driving coil on the bar structure.”
With respect to claims 1 and 10, the closest prior art references are: Hasegawa et al. JP 2014-160195A (hereafter Hasegawa, where reference will be made to the machine translation supplied in the parent application), Wauke et al. US 2019/0363623 A1 (hereafter Wauke) and Kokichi US 2011/0058268 A1 (hereafter Kokichi).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa teaches “An optical element driving unit (lens driving device 1), comprising:
a stationary body (support member 6 which is stationary in the sense that lens holder 7 moves relative to 6 for autofocusing);
a carrier (lens holder 7), configured for at least one optical element to be disposed thereon (paragraph [0020]: “a lens holder 7 capable of holding a lens body (not shown)”), wherein the carrier has at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body (paragraph [0020] the lens holder 7 moves in the optical axis direction (Z-direction) for the autofocus function);
a supporting mechanism (balls 1501 and 1502 which are an equivalent to the springs of the instant application in that they are an alternative mechanism for holding the lens holder with respect to the support member in a manner such that the lens holder can move with respect to the support member, see paragraph [0040]: “balls 1501 and 1502 serve to smoothly move the lens holder 7 pressed against the support member 6 in the optical axis direction (the Z-axis direction shown in FIG. 1).”), connected to the carrier and the stationary body (see e.g. paragraph [0040]), wherein the supporting mechanism provides the carrier with the at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body (paragraph [0040]: “balls 1501 and 1502 serve to smoothly move the lens holder 7” and see movement of 7 in paragraph [0020]); and
an electromagnetic driving assembly (see elements thereof below), configured to move the carrier relative to the stationary body (paragraph [0038]: “coils 1401a and 1401b, the yoke 13, and the above-mentioned magnets 1101 and 1102 constitute a first moving mechanism that moves the lens holder 7 in the optical axis direction.”), wherein the electromagnetic driving assembly comprises:
a driving coil (pair of coils 1401a and 1401b), disposed on the carrier (paragraph [0038]: “The coils 1401a and 1401b are fixed to parts of the protruding surface portions 701 and 702”);
a driving magnet (magnets 1101 and 1102), disposed on the stationary body (“A pair of magnets 1101 (1101a, 1101b) is fixed to the upper and lower surfaces of the metal member 602a, and a pair of magnets 1102 (1102a, 1102b) is fixed to the upper and lower surfaces of the metal member 602b (see FIG. 2).”) and disposed corresponding to the driving coil (paragraph [0038]: “These coils 1401a and 1401b, the yoke 13, and the above-mentioned magnets 1101 and 1102 constitute a first moving mechanism”); and
a [magnetic] element (yoke 13 made of a magnetic metal plate see paragraph [0037]), disposed on the carrier (paragraph [0037] “The yoke 13 is fixed to the outer circumferential surface of the lens holder 7 with the holding pieces 701 a , 701 b and the holding pieces 702 a , 702 b passing through these openings.”), wherein the [magnetic] element is one-piece formed (paragraph [0037]: “The yoke 13 is formed by punching and bending a magnetic metal plate”) and comprises a magnetic field guiding part (the main rectangular portions of yoke 13 that face the coils 1401a and 1401b where paragraph [0038]: “These coils 1401a and 1401b, the yoke 13, and the above-mentioned magnets 1101 and 1102 constitute a first moving mechanism” thus magnetic yoke 13 is part of the VCM and thus guides the magnetic field) and a first electrical connection part (paragraph [0066]: “the yoke 13 is made of a single conductive member, and this yoke 13 is attached to the lens holder 7, and one ends of the coils 1401a and 1401b are connected to the yoke 13. This allows the yoke 13 to be used as a power supply path for the coils 1401a and 1401b.”), the magnetic field guiding part faces at least one of the driving coil (yoke 13 faces 1401a and 1401b) and the driving magnet (this is optional), and the first electrical connection part is electrically connected to the driving coil (paragraph [0066]: “one ends of the coils 1401a and 1401b are connected to the yoke 13. This allows the yoke 13 to be used as a power supply path for the coils 1401a and 1401b.”);
wherein the ferromagnetic element is formed by a stamping process (paragraph [0037]: “The yoke 13 is formed by punching and bending a magnetic metal plate”. Note that punching and stamping are the same process), and the ferromagnetic element has:
a shearing surface (one of the two major surfaces of yoke 13);
a tearing surface (the other major surface of 13), opposite to the shearing surface (the two, inner and outer, major surfaces are opposite to each other); and
a cutting surface (the lateral surfaces of 13 along which the shape of 13 was cut in the punching process), connected to the shearing surface and the tearing surface (see e.g. Fig. 1).”
However, Hasegawa does not explicitly teach that yoke 13 is ferromagnetic, only that it is a magnetic metal (paragraph [0037]).
Wauke teaches (paragraph [0056]) “the yoke 61 formed by a ferromagnetic material such as iron or the like, is provided on the outer side of the permanent magnet 51 in the Y1-direction, to guide the magnetic flux generated from the permanent magnet 51 toward the vibrator 30, and the yoke 62 formed by a ferromagnetic material such as iron or the like, is provided on the outer side of the permanent magnet 52 in the Y2-direction, to guide the magnetic flux generated from the permanent magnet 52 toward the vibrator 30.”
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a ferromagnetic metal as the magnetic metal of yoke 13 of Hasegawa as taught by Wauke since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07. In the instant case, Wauke teaches that a ferromagnetic yoke guides the magnetic flux from the permanent magnet in magnet and coil based driver (see paragraph [0056] and [0008]. Thus a ferromagnetic metal is known material suitable for use as a guiding yoke in a coil-magnet based driver.
However, Hasegawa fails to teach “wherein [an] electrical connection part… is disposed on a bar structure.”
Kokichi teaches a lens driving device “wherein an electrical connection part [of the coil] (coiling pull start section 15A of the driving coil 15 which electrically connects driving coil 15 to a terminal 18b see paragraph [0043]) is disposed on a bar structure (see bar shape of extended piece 183/connecting piece 18c).”
However, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “wherein the first electrical connection part of the ferromagnetic element is disposed on a bar structure of the carrier; wherein a part of the tearing surface located at the first electrical connection part faces the bar structure, and a part of the shearing surface located at the first electrical connection part is in physical contact with the driving coil.”
Regarding claim 10, Hasegawa teaches “An optical element driving unit (lens driving device 1), comprising:
a stationary body (support member 6 which is stationary in the sense that lens holder 7 moves relative to 6 for autofocusing);
a carrier (lens holder 7), configured for at least one optical element to be disposed thereon (paragraph [0020]: “a lens holder 7 capable of holding a lens body (not shown)”), wherein the carrier has at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body (paragraph [0020] the lens holder 7 moves in the optical axis direction (Z-direction) for the autofocus function);
a supporting mechanism (balls 1501 and 1502 which are an equivalent to the springs of the instant application in that they are an alternative mechanism for holding the lens holder with respect to the support member in a manner such that the lens holder can move with respect to the support member, see paragraph [0040]: “balls 1501 and 1502 serve to smoothly move the lens holder 7 pressed against the support member 6 in the optical axis direction (the Z-axis direction shown in FIG. 1).”), connected to the carrier and the stationary body (see e.g. paragraph [0040]), wherein the supporting mechanism provides the carrier with the at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body (paragraph [0040]: “balls 1501 and 1502 serve to smoothly move the lens holder 7” and see movement of 7 in paragraph [0020]); and
an electromagnetic driving assembly (see elements thereof below), configured to move the carrier relative to the stationary body (paragraph [0038]: “coils 1401a and 1401b, the yoke 13, and the above-mentioned magnets 1101 and 1102 constitute a first moving mechanism that moves the lens holder 7 in the optical axis direction.”), wherein the electromagnetic driving assembly comprises:
a driving coil (pair of coils 1401a and 1401b), disposed on the carrier (paragraph [0038]: “The coils 1401a and 1401b are fixed to parts of the protruding surface portions 701 and 702”);
a driving magnet (magnets 1101 and 1102), disposed on the stationary body (“A pair of magnets 1101 (1101a, 1101b) is fixed to the upper and lower surfaces of the metal member 602a, and a pair of magnets 1102 (1102a, 1102b) is fixed to the upper and lower surfaces of the metal member 602b (see FIG. 2).”) and disposed corresponding to the driving coil (paragraph [0038]: “These coils 1401a and 1401b, the yoke 13, and the above-mentioned magnets 1101 and 1102 constitute a first moving mechanism”); and
a [magnetic] element (yoke 13 made of a magnetic metal plate see paragraph [0037]), disposed on the carrier (paragraph [0037] “The yoke 13 is fixed to the outer circumferential surface of the lens holder 7 with the holding pieces 701 a , 701 b and the holding pieces 702 a , 702 b passing through these openings.”), wherein the [magnetic] element has the at least one degree of freedom of movement relative to the stationary body (yoke 13 is disposed on lens holder 7, and thus will move in the optical axis direction), the [magnetic] element is one-piece formed (paragraph [0037]: “The yoke 13 is formed by punching and bending a magnetic metal plate”) and comprises a magnetic field guiding part (the main rectangular portions of yoke 13 that face the coils 1401a and 1401b where paragraph [0038]: “These coils 1401a and 1401b, the yoke 13, and the above-mentioned magnets 1101 and 1102 constitute a first moving mechanism” thus magnetic yoke 13 is part of the VCM and thus guides the magnetic field) and a first electrical connection part (paragraph [0066]: “the yoke 13 is made of a single conductive member, and this yoke 13 is attached to the lens holder 7, and one ends of the coils 1401a and 1401b are connected to the yoke 13. This allows the yoke 13 to be used as a power supply path for the coils 1401a and 1401b.”), the magnetic field guiding part faces at least one of the driving coil (yoke 13 faces 1401a and 1401b) and the driving magnet (this is optional), and the first electrical connection part… is electrically connected to the driving coil (paragraph [0066]: “one ends of the coils 1401a and 1401b are connected to the yoke 13. This allows the yoke 13 to be used as a power supply path for the coils 1401a and 1401b.”).”
However, Hasegawa does not explicitly teach that yoke 13 is ferromagnetic, only that it is a magnetic metal (paragraph [0037]).
Wauke teaches (paragraph [0056]) “the yoke 61 formed by a ferromagnetic material such as iron or the like, is provided on the outer side of the permanent magnet 51 in the Y1-direction, to guide the magnetic flux generated from the permanent magnet 51 toward the vibrator 30, and the yoke 62 formed by a ferromagnetic material such as iron or the like, is provided on the outer side of the permanent magnet 52 in the Y2-direction, to guide the magnetic flux generated from the permanent magnet 52 toward the vibrator 30.”
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a ferromagnetic metal as the magnetic metal of yoke 13 of Hasegawa as taught by Wauke since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07. In the instant case, Wauke teaches that a ferromagnetic yoke guides the magnetic flux from the permanent magnet in magnet and coil based driver (see paragraph [0056] and [0008]. Thus a ferromagnetic metal is known material suitable for use as a guiding yoke in a coil-magnet based driver.
However, Hasegawa fails to teach “wherein [an] electrical connection part… is disposed on a bar structure.”
Kokichi teaches a lens driving device “wherein an electrical connection part [of the coil] (coiling pull start section 15A of the driving coil 15 which electrically connects driving coil 15 to a terminal 18b see paragraph [0043]) is disposed on a bar structure (see bar shape of extended piece 183/connecting piece 18c).”
However, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “the first electrical connection part is disposed on a bar structure of the carrier and is electrically connected to the driving coil on the bar structure.”
In particular, it would not have been obvious to adopt the bar structure of Kokichi for an electrical connection between the yoke of Hasegawa and the coil of Hasegawa, for at least the following reasons. Firstly, in Kokichi the coiling pull section is being directly electrically connected to terminals leading to the exterior of the device, not to a magnetic or ferromagnetic yoke. Secondly, the bar structure of Kokichi is part of the stationary portion, not the carrier. Thirdly, the yoke and coils in Hasegawa are both very near to one another and not moving relative to one another, unlike Kokichi. Thus, the problems solved in Kokichi are not present in Hasegawa. Thus, no proper combination of prior art exists that would render claim 10 obvious without improper hindsight.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and are allowable for at least the reason stated above.
Claims 11-18 depend from claim 10 and are allowable for at least the reason stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guo et al. CN 108375863 “Camera Module” teaches an electrically connected yoke and coil, but on the stationary portion of an optical element driving unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky L Mack can be reached on 571-272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights